All Discussions Tagged 'hell' - Atheist Nexus2015-08-02T20:29:10Zhttp://atheistnexus.org/forum/topic/listForTag?tag=hell&feed=yes&xn_auth=noPascal's Wager Invertedtag:atheistnexus.org,2014-10-05:2182797:Topic:24847362014-10-05T22:19:33.178ZBertold Brautiganhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/BertoldBrautigan
<p>Apologies in advance. This topic got enough airtime last time around, but Bob Smith, in his <a href="http://spurts-of-ink.blogspot.com/2014/10/losing-is-half-fun.html" target="_blank">Spurts of Ink</a> blog, did a very nifty job of standing it on its head.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Losing Pascal's Wager is Half the Fun</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Don't get me wrong: I adore Blaise Pascal. There are so many things to thank him for, it's hard to know where to begin. The creation of probability…</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Apologies in advance. This topic got enough airtime last time around, but Bob Smith, in his <a href="http://spurts-of-ink.blogspot.com/2014/10/losing-is-half-fun.html" target="_blank">Spurts of Ink</a> blog, did a very nifty job of standing it on its head.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Losing Pascal's Wager is Half the Fun</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Don't get me wrong: I adore Blaise Pascal. There are so many things to thank him for, it's hard to know where to begin. The creation of probability theory, yes, (through an exchange of letters with Pierre de Fermat--surely one of the most productive correspondences in the history of science). An investigation of the properties of binomial coefficients, yes. And, whoa! Contributions to the foundations of mathematics (with a nudge from Descartes), anticipating formalism, yes! But of all his creations, perhaps I remember him most fondly for mathematical (sometimes called "finite") induction, one of the mathematician's most powerful and beautiful tools. It's almost a counterexample to Oscar Wilde's,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it.</p>
<p><i> </i></p>
<p>But one thing that won't gain his installation in my Hall of Fame, is his ludicrous Pascal's Wager. No! I certainly give him credit for attempting to apply an axiomatic method to the problem. But it was like trying to open a can of beans with a stick of dynamite. <br/> <br/> Or more accurately, like urinating on the grave of William of Occam.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But back to Pascal's unworthy attempt to sway the gullible. Brilliant mathematician though he was, Pascal built his line of reasoning upon some shaky axioms. For example, he made a number of unwarranted assumptions for us all, the worst being that living forever is desirable. For me, there is something so liberating about finitude, not servitude. Doesn't that crumble the payoff of his wager in one fell swoop?<br/> <br/> Imagine if you will, a person living an entire life doing little more than meeting the expectations of society, in hopes of joining the Choir Eternal. Further imagine there is no such body.<br/> <br/> But consider the inverse of Pascal's Wager, what might be more cheerfully called Lord Henry's Wager: suppose you spent your entire life entrapped by someone else's mumbo-jumbo, eschewing echt experiences, thinking only recycled thoughts, expecting some sort of jackpot on your deathbed for doing so (and worse, helping to elect candidates holding those raddled views, inflicting your superstition on the rest of us). <br/> <br/> And then with your last heartbeat it turns out there's nothing more than your last heartbeat. <br/> <br/> Liber Al vel Legis tells us, not unreasonably, that we are supposed to grow while we are here, to accrete new experiences, to uncover our true potential. Even sinning for the hell of it wouldn't be a bad start.<br/> <br/> Losing Lord Henry's Wager means wasting the only life you were given.<br/> <br/> And winning the wager? We need but turn to Oscar for a bit of cheerleading,</p>
<p>...to influence a person is to give him one's own soul. He does not think his natural thoughts, or burn with his natural passions. His virtues are not real to him. His sins, if there are such things as sins, are borrowed. He becomes an echo of some one else's music, an actor of a part that has not been written for him. The aim of life is self-development. To realize one's nature perfectly—that is what each of us is here for. People are afraid of themselves, nowadays. They have forgotten the highest of all duties, the duty that one owes to one's self. Of course, they are charitable. They feed the hungry and clothe the beggar. But their own souls starve, and are naked. Courage has gone out of our race. Perhaps we never really had it. The terror of society, which is the basis of morals, the terror of God, which is the secret of religion—these are the two things that govern us.</p>
<p>Anyway, what's the point of a species evolving so far as to create reason and logic, only to turn its back on what they lead to? You don't really mean to tell me Aristotle, Leibniz, Boole, Russell, Whitehead, Turing and Gödel were all just joshing us, do you?<br/> <br/> Do you see why I consider Babbitt not only the best piece of literature I've ever encountered, but the most important? Will you permit me to leave you, once again, with one of the saddest things ever penned? </p>
<p><i>Now, for heaven’s sake, don’t repeat this to your mother, or she’d remove what little hair I’ve got left, but practically, I’ve never done a single thing I’ve wanted to in my whole life!</i></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Is that really a gamble worth taking?</p>
</blockquote> An Early Escape Hatch from Christianitytag:atheistnexus.org,2014-09-09:2182797:Topic:24723642014-09-09T21:25:58.294ZBertold Brautiganhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/BertoldBrautigan
<p><span class="font-size-3">One of the great pillars of support in my exodus from religious belief back in the day was poet and graphic artist William Blake, 1757 - 1827. I still don't quite see how he got away with saying what he did in his time.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">In one of his major poems, <em>The Marriage of Heaven and Hell</em>, he mounted pretty much of a full frontal attack:</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><i>All Bibles or sacred codes have been the…</i></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">One of the great pillars of support in my exodus from religious belief back in the day was poet and graphic artist William Blake, 1757 - 1827. I still don't quite see how he got away with saying what he did in his time.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">In one of his major poems, <em>The Marriage of Heaven and Hell</em>, he mounted pretty much of a full frontal attack:</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><i>All Bibles or sacred codes have been the causes of the following errors:</i></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><i>1. </i> <i>That Man has two real existing principles. Viz: a Body &amp; a Soul.</i></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><i>2. </i> <i>That Energy, calld Evil, is alone from the Body &amp; that Reason, calld Good, is alone from the Soul.</i></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><i>3. </i> <i>That God will torment Man in Eternity for following his Energies.</i></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><i>But the following Contraries to these are true.</i></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><i>1. </i> <i>Man has no Body distinct from his Soul for that calld Body is a portion of Soul discerned by the five Senses, the chief inlets of Soul in this age.</i></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><i>2. </i> <i>Energy is the only life and is from the Body and Reason is the bound or outward circumference of Energy.</i></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><i>3. </i></span> <i><span><span class="font-size-3">Energy is Eternal Delight.</span></span></i></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">He castigated the priests for "laying their curse on the fairest joys," and loved nothing more than roaming through his garden in the buff. I would have loved to meet this guy!</span></p> There is NO Hell! by Justin Vollmar's videotag:atheistnexus.org,2014-03-01:2182797:Topic:23884912014-03-01T02:05:44.650Zsflmachttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/sflmac
<p>Here"s Justin Vollmar! </p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS8mvjrMNd4">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS8mvjrMNd4</a></p>
<p>Here"s Justin Vollmar! </p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS8mvjrMNd4">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS8mvjrMNd4</a></p> Children should be allowed to get bored so they can develop their innate ability to be creative, an education expert says.tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-03-25:2182797:Topic:21994202013-03-25T13:24:59.442ZAgeOfAtheists14http://atheistnexus.org/profile/secularorbust
<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21895704">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21895704</a><br/><br/><br/></p>
<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21895704">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21895704</a><br/><br/><br/></p> Church o' satan pon de atheist podcast~ ha, wish I had the time.. someone tell me what u think...tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-11-11:2182797:Topic:20990792012-11-11T18:17:33.356ZAgeOfAtheists14http://atheistnexus.org/profile/secularorbust
<p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0sehy8lp200?list=PLC4FC68E9C1D65BFC&amp;hl=en_US&amp;wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</p>
<p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0sehy8lp200?list=PLC4FC68E9C1D65BFC&amp;hl=en_US&amp;wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</p> Audio Reveals Romney Told Employers to Give Staff Voting Advicetag:atheistnexus.org,2012-10-19:2182797:Topic:20823372012-10-19T10:28:12.133ZAgeOfAtheists14http://atheistnexus.org/profile/secularorbust
<p>Mitt Romney campaigned in the battleground state of Virginia Wednesday. He is now facing criticism over a conference call from June where he told employers they should give their staff advice on how to vote. Romney made the remarks during a talk with small-business owners.</p>
<p><strong>Mitt Romney</strong>: "I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise, and therefore their job and their future, in the upcoming elections. And…</p>
<p>Mitt Romney campaigned in the battleground state of Virginia Wednesday. He is now facing criticism over a conference call from June where he told employers they should give their staff advice on how to vote. Romney made the remarks during a talk with small-business owners.</p>
<p><strong>Mitt Romney</strong>: "I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise, and therefore their job and their future, in the upcoming elections. And whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view, I hope — I hope you pass those along to your employees.<br/><br/><a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/18/headlines#10187">http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/18/headlines#10187</a><br/>~<br/>meanwhile in realityville:<br/><br/></p>
<div class="headlinetext"><p>Uruguay’s Senate has passed a measure legalizing first-trimester abortions, and the president is widely expected to sign it into law, making Uruguay one of a few Latin American countries to allow abortions for any reason. Those seeking abortion would need to explain their case before a panel of healthcare professionals, hear about alternatives such as adoption, and then wait for five days. Uruguayan Senator Constanza Moreira defended the right to abortion.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Senator Constanza Moreira</strong>: "They are the sexual and reproductive rights of women. No woman can be obligated to carry out a pregnancy she does not want. That is violence against women. And, well, separating women from their bodies and giving them the right to not just be a body where a future life can be held has taken many years."<br/>++++++++++++++++++++++++++</p>
<p><br/>btw fiberopic layer workers in that same land were on NPR smoking a joint because you can grow it legally there hello! mention of 'knowing' where yer dope comes from a huge gain on not giving money to sadistic cartelz<br/>paz</p>
</blockquote>
</div> Theravada Buddhism, atheism, and clearing up some misconceptionstag:atheistnexus.org,2011-12-05:2182797:Topic:17594212011-12-05T08:50:02.019ZDavid Raphaelhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DavidRaphael
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2"><a href="http://www.cagle.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/steve.gif" target="_blank"><img class="align-center" src="http://www.cagle.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/steve.gif"></img></a></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2"><br></br></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">A few people have made erroneous claims about the beliefs of Theravada Buddhists (and Buddhists in general) so I thought I’d do a basic run-down to clarify a few ambiguous areas and misconceptions. It’s not complete by any stretch of the imagination and I hope you will forgive…</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.cagle.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/steve.gif"><img class="align-center" src="http://www.cagle.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/steve.gif"/></a></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2"><br/></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">A few people have made erroneous claims about the beliefs of Theravada Buddhists (and Buddhists in general) so I thought I’d do a basic run-down to clarify a few ambiguous areas and misconceptions. It’s not complete by any stretch of the imagination and I hope you will forgive any errors of expression. Let’s leave the politics out of this discussion – we could start another thread for that. This is about root beliefs and misconceptions.</span></p>
<blockquote><p align="center"><span class="font-size-2"><i>“No gods; no supernature, only thought and reasoning”</i></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span class="font-size-2"><i> </i></span></p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><span class="font-size-2"><i> About:</i></span></strong></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">- Theravada Buddhism is atheist</span><strong><span class="font-size-2"><br/></span></strong></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">- Theravada Buddhism is the earliest/closest to the original teachings.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">- The Dalai Lama has nothing to do with Theravada.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">- Theravada Buddhism is not to be confused with the much later and better known Tibetan and Zen Buddhism (Mahayana Buddhism). Many people do not consider Tibetan in particular to be ‘pure Buddhism’ because it merged with local shamanistic traditions (which had supernatural elements). Theravada Buddhism (and original Buddhism) does not promote belief in the supernatural.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">- The Buddha (Prince Siddharta) was <em><strong>not a god</strong> <strong>or deity</strong></em>. <span class="font-size-2">Siddharta made no claims of divinity. He only ever claimed to be a person like you or me and tried to deal with reality as it can be experienced by humans.</span> Buddha simply means ‘awakened one’. Anyone can become ‘awakened’. It is not a ‘supernatural state’, just a way of perceiving the world and is in principle achievable by anyone.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">-Buddhism is <em>not</em> Hinduism. Buddha rejected Hinduism, its caste system, its gods etc. <br/></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2"><br/></span></p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><span class="font-size-2"><i>Gods and the supernatural:</i></span></strong></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">- Buddhists are atheists; <em><strong>they do not believe in god,</strong></em> especially a creator god. You may have seen multi-armed, multi-eyed so-called gods in Eastern images – these are meant to be <em>taken as metaphors</em> for psychological mind-states. They are <em>not</em> meant to taken literally, ie, existing in the real world. Taking mythical beings literally is a mono-theistic thing to do.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">Similarly, you may hear references to ‘ghosts’ and ‘hell realms’ in Buddhism. Again, these are <em>not meant to be taken literally</em>. They are to be thought of as ‘states of mind’ and not existing in the external/real world. It's not too far removed from saying 'jealousy is a green-eyed monster'. You don't really mean that such a monster exists. <br/></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2"> </span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">- Buddhists do not believe in god(s) because they do not exist by Buddhist definition. The early Buddhist definition of what exists is defined as <strong><em>"that which can be known. If it cannot be known, then it does not exist.”</em></strong></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2"><em><br/></em></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">- Theravada does not promote supernatural beliefs. In fact, Buddha strongly believed in reason and <em><strong>actively opposed faith</strong>.</em> <span class="font-size-2">Indeed, he said:<br/></span></span></p>
<blockquote><p><strong><span class="font-size-2"><span class="font-size-2">“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”</span></span></strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">-- Rational thought was integral from the start. Buddha even said that people who believe in god(s) only do so because they are afraid. He considered belief in god(s) to be primitive.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2"> </span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">-- Buddhists, like the Buddha, believed that the universe was created by natural forces as a result of cause and effect.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2"> </span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">-- Buddha did not even think that Buddhism was the only way. He thought of it as a non-exclusive tool to help people understand the nature of reality. He even said it was ultimately disposable.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">Buddhists do not claim that their way of doing things is exclusively right and are aware that politically and socially, like any group of humans, they make errors. The aim is to learn from mistakes and move on and <em>not</em> endorse outmoded ways of doing things or hold desperately on to disprovable or unhelpful concepts.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2"> </span></p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><span class="font-size-2"><i>Concepts you may have heard of:</i></span></strong></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">- <strong><i>Rebirth</i></strong> (NOT <i>Reincarnation).</i> Many people wrongly think that this means a kind of soul or ‘essence’ moving from one body to another. This is a typical misconception. Buddhists do not believe this, nor have they ever. Put very simply, rebirth is to be thought of as ‘your actions have consequences that go beyond you’.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2"> </span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">- <strong><i>Karma</i>.</strong> In continuation of the above, karma is to be thought of a cause and effect system. It is not some kind of ‘cosmic supernatural punishment/reward system’ ie, if you did something wrong, something bad will eventually happen to you to equal things out. Again, this is a typical misconception. Simply put, Buddhists believe that bad causes have bad effects and good causes have good effects.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2"> </span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2"><strong>These concepts are</strong> <i><strong>not scientific claims</strong>;</i> they are philosophical claims. A common explanation for the cause and effect of karma and rebirth is the kinetic energy that is passed from one moving billiard ball to another when it is hit.<br/></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2"> </span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">Unlike monotheistic traditions, Buddhism believes in science and changing the nature of Buddhism if science demands it. Even the Dalai Lama said (he was paraphrasing Buddhist texts):</span></p>
<p><strong><span class="font-size-2"> <i>‘if science finds something that Buddhism thought true to be incorrect, then Buddhism must change.’</i></span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span class="font-size-2"><i><br/></i></span></strong></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">He also said<i>:</i></span></p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><span class="font-size-2"><i><br/></i></span></p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span class="font-size-2"><i>“to defy the authority of empirical evidence is to disqualify oneself as someone worthy of critical engagement in a dialogue.”</i></span></strong></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2"> </span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">- Is science superior to Buddhism and therefore Buddhism can now be rejected?</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">No, not really. Science cannot replace Buddhist philosophy any more than it can replace Hegelian philosophy, existentialism, structuralism, epicureanism or any other philosophical 'ism'. Science does not impact philosophy in this way. Science and Buddhism work on very different planes but they do often agree with each other.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2"> </span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">So, in summary, Buddhism is not a religion like Christianity or Islam. It makes no supernatural claims. It believes in reason and self–reflection and if any aspects are proven by science to be logically faulty, they can easily be rejected. In fact, Buddhism promotes progress. Rejection of non-scientific claims and 'blind faith' is 'built-in'.<br/></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">Many, including Dawkins, don’t even consider it a religion, though that is a contentious issue.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">The core philosophy of how to deal successfully with life, death and our place in the world, has nothing to do with science (though science will certainly inform Buddhism and help it find new ways of understanding the world).</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">Science deals with what, why and how emotions/thoughts/feelings are – the neurological and psychological. But science does not deal <em>in the same way</em> with how we may <em>overcome negative thought processes or how to perceive the world</em>, nor does it deal with the <em>philosophy of ethics/morality</em>.<br/></span></p> Ask a Theist and let me know what they saytag:atheistnexus.org,2011-03-30:2182797:Topic:11904622011-03-30T15:24:57.897ZSuryahttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/Surya
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="color: #003366; font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;">Who indiscriminatley kills hundreds with a bomb we call a terrorist...and who indiscriminatley kills thousands with a tsunami...we call a God</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="color: #003366; font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;">And the dumbos of the world keep praying to the same fucker who caused this disaster.…</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="color: #003366; font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;">Who indiscriminatley kills hundreds with a bomb we call a terrorist...and who indiscriminatley kills thousands with a tsunami...we call a God</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #003366; font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;" class="font-size-4">And the dumbos of the world keep praying to the same fucker who caused this disaster.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #003366; font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;" class="font-size-4">Makes any sense to them?<br/></span></p> How to cure Christians of their fear of helltag:atheistnexus.org,2010-12-28:2182797:Topic:10660112010-12-28T23:26:27.938ZGlen Bartonhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/GlenBarton
<p>Ok, I have a question for any ex-thologians, current theologians, recently de-converted Christians or anyone else with thoughts on the matter. It comes from an interesting situation.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On the weekend, my 60 year old mum went skydiving. Pretty proud of her courage, but she was a bit anxious leading up to it and in her typical fashion, took it to the melodramatic length of writing us all notesd to read in case she died. We all said "thanks for the lovely thoughts but don't be…</p>
<p>Ok, I have a question for any ex-thologians, current theologians, recently de-converted Christians or anyone else with thoughts on the matter. It comes from an interesting situation.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On the weekend, my 60 year old mum went skydiving. Pretty proud of her courage, but she was a bit anxious leading up to it and in her typical fashion, took it to the melodramatic length of writing us all notesd to read in case she died. We all said "thanks for the lovely thoughts but don't be silly" and of course the jump went fine and she loved it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>However it did get me to thinking.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In her note to me she said some very nice things about being proud of me, and her love for both me and my wife, but also that her biggest hope in life was that I come back to faith, and "return to believing that god is love and welcomes you with open arms"... or something like that.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Of course, one cannot believe that which oine knows to be false, even if one wanted to. It goes against the nature of the human mind. And even if i could, I would consider it the biggest tragedy in my life if I suffered a brain injury that caused me to believe such dangerous and silly nonsense again. I am free of that (and have been these last 10 years) and can and will never return to such an infantile world view.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So I am certainly going to dissapoint mum in that regard, although I do not want her, when it is eventually her time, to leave this one life we have feeling anxious about my eternal soul. Like I said, the simple thing would be to, when she is getting closer to the end of her life, pretend that I have become a Christian again, but this would go against everything I value and hold to be important. However, neither do I want to be calous and just say "Mum, I'm never going to believe and that's it" which will leave her with an ongoing anxiety up till the end f her life that her son will be in hell for eternity.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So I have come up with a plan.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I need to cure my mother of her fear of hell.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have no desire to try to de-convert her, to destroy her faith, or convince her that I am right about the non-existence of god. her faith works for her and as long as it's not hurting anyone else, that's fine. It gives her comfort, but part of it also causes her pain as it has convinced her that my not sharing her belief has eternal consequences. So I do need to tear down that part of the belief, so that she can be at peace about my atheism.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The fear of hell is one of the most ingrained and damaging components of Christianity. It has been used to control people for centuries and has caused many otherwise intelligent people to relinquish their intellectual honesty and, white knuckled, hold onto unjustified beliefs for der life - beliefs that they really do know deep down have no basis.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It also causes huge distress in those who believ it about their loved ones who do not. In all these ways and many more as well, the teaching and belief in hell is one of the most insidious and nasty elements of Christianity, not to mention something that would make god, if he did exist, a sadistic, childish, petulant and nasty dictator.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But many many committed Christians, people who have faith that does provide them comfort and eace, do not believe in the now somewhat medieval view of hell. Unfortunately, my mother's brand of evangelical fundamentalism does believe in a literal hell as a place of eternal torture and suffering.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So I would like to talk to my mother about her belief in hell, encourage her that for her own peace of mind she would be well served to read soem books by trusted Christian authors who challenge the notion of hell, and come to an understanding that the doctrine of hell is not needed for her faith, and is indeed the antithesis of the loving god in whom she professes belief.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Of course, I could outline to her that facts that a belief in hell was not something that has been existent from the start in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and in fact developed slowly and crystalised quite late in the history of monotheism. I could point out that Jesus almost certainly did not have a belief in hell in the same way that she does, but she would dismiss that as the scepticism of a non-believer, and shut her ears to the facts the same way that she chooses to remain ignorant of the basics of evolutionary biology or the development of the documents that now constitute the bible.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So I need to be able to direct her to thinking about hell, that comprehensively destroys the notion of eternal suffering and torture, from inside her own sphere of belief.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If people have suggestions of Christian authors who write well on this topic, or have their own ideas about arguments that can cure Christians of hell fear, I would be most appreciative.</p> How Holy Scriptures Make Hell A Realitytag:atheistnexus.org,2010-01-31:2182797:Topic:7067702010-01-31T04:20:23.925ZAlex Tylerhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/AlexTyler2112
<p>My 1 problem with religion itself is the extremists and mindless fundamentalism it produces. The Bible and The Koran both support a zero tolerance and rather fascist mentality which is destroying humanity more than helping it. If they support an all loving god then why wage war in that gods name? Did that god tell you personally to kill another person and if so, how are you sure that it's not an evil spirit or a mental disorder that your aflicted with? Religion seems to make most people act…</p>
<p>My 1 problem with religion itself is the extremists and mindless fundamentalism it produces. The Bible and The Koran both support a zero tolerance and rather fascist mentality which is destroying humanity more than helping it. If they support an all loving god then why wage war in that gods name? Did that god tell you personally to kill another person and if so, how are you sure that it's not an evil spirit or a mental disorder that your aflicted with? Religion seems to make most people act like intolerant asshats. <em>"anyone different must be converted so they love our god and don't get punnished"</em> - yet they attempt to do this by ringing the doorbell between 11:30 AM - 12:45 PM and trying to invite themselves inside... oh yeah, being rude early in the day makes people love a god right? <em>*rolls eyes*</em> -_-</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And if religious people want to go to heaven so badly, why not be a stunt double or join the military during a really bloody war? <em>"Reakless Self Endangerment"</em> techincally isn't suicide. All this talk about death seems rather depressing don't you think? Holy Scriptures make "Hell" reality for us by turning 1 man, city and/or country against one another and even themselves.</p>
<p><em><strong>"Hells already here if we are living to die"</strong></em> - quote from <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCItXkX5gS8">"Beast Loose In Paradise"</a> by Lordi.</p>